In the old canon Thrawn enslaved nations (like the Noghri) used torture, mass murder, terror and subterfuge to reach his goals.

He supposedly just wanted to unite the galaxy to be able to fight the Juuzhan Vong but you'd think that just saying "Dudes! There's these alien warmonger horde and it's coming right for us! We gotta fight together!" (or some more eloquent way to phrase that) would have also been effective AND it would not have caused millions of deaths in a unnecessary war that simply made the galaxy weaker.

...But that's just me and I don't know what the current canon on him is because Season 2 of the Rebels is still unavailable on Netflix...

In the old canon Thrawn enslaved nations (like the Noghri) used torture, mass murder, terror and subterfuge to reach his goals.

He supposedly just wanted to unite the galaxy to be able to fight the Juuzhan Vong but you'd think that just saying "Dudes! There's these alien warmonger horde and it's coming right for us! We gotta fight together!" (or some more eloquent way to phrase that) would have also been effective AND it would not have caused millions of deaths in a unnecessary war that simply made the galaxy weaker.

...But that's just me and I don't know what the current canon on him is because Season 2 of the Rebels is still unavailable on Netflix...

Well, in the new continuity, Thrawn's pretty ruthless. I don't want to go into spoiler territory, but I'll just say that somebody willing to throw their own subordinates under the bus to further their own plans isn't exactly what you'd call a nice guy.

There's a fine line between understanding that Hitler wasn't "all evil, all the time" and whitewashing him. It's a line these comments are sailing right over. A few cute photos don't make him less of a depraved monster.

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Commentary on US gun laws after the school shooting in Florida that has left at least 17 dead:

Quote

Quote

I'm still having trouble getting my head round the idea that the shooter wasn't old enough to buy booze, but was old enough to own an assault weapon.

On that point, we allow people to serve their country when they're 18. Seems like allowing them to own a gun, generally speaking, isn't that big of a leap.

Put another way, if there's a reason to prevent them from having their gun, it shouldn't be JUST because of their age.

Quote

Quote

The sheer fact that you can buy a gun at a younger age than alcohol is insane.

Besides, it is a great leap.In the military, people are trained, supervised and if necessary, disciplined when they screw up.

They don't stack up guns like other people stack diapers, when in the military. A soldier has one assault rifle and one hand gun, normally. Ammunition is handed to the soldier for certain purposes, they can't garner it sky high in their rooms.

That is a huge difference.In civilian life, any moron of a hillbilly can buy guns until his house is filled with them and stack up ammunition like crazy. No supervision, no discipline, no training.

You take a shot at 'hillbillies' as 'morons' but I'd be willing to bet that the people you're referring to are more knowledge about gun use and applicable gun laws than the people committing these crimes. Also, there's legit reasons to have guns in some parts of this country where people (and help) are farther away and wild animals can pose a real threat to safety.

Here's a question for the European/Australian crowd who likes to tell us Americans what terrible people we are: Have you ever met/talked with/directly engaged anyone that falls into the group that you think so little of, or is it just an internet stereotype for you?

PS: I think the drinking age is fine where it is, but I'd be in favor of an exception for service members specifically because you don't get to serve without being able to have some discipline in your life. The fact that an Army Private can get blown up by a Taliban IED in Afghanistan but can't order a Bud Light when he finishes his tour rubs me the wrong way. That Private has earned it, IMO (subject to the same laws everyone else is subject to - ie drunk driving, etc.)

On the bit about animals (admittedly from a German):

Quote

That's your argument? Protection from wild animals?There's a reason why they call them assault rifles. I've never heard of these protection rifles you speak of.Please explain to me why you need a semi-automatic of full-automatic rifle to defend yourself from a bear.

Reply?

Quote

Well first off, those are two different things. Generally speaking, fully automatic weapons are illegal.

As to semi-autos, what's wrong with those? Put in the context we're talking about, given the closing speed of a bear and the stopping power required to take it down, do you really want to trust that a) you'll hit your first shot with a bolt action rifle and b) that you'll get a kill shot the first time, or at least a wounding shot that gives you enough time to re-cock? That MIGHT be the case, but a semi-auto gives you more margin of error --> higher chance of surviving.

And it's not just bears. Mountain lions and other large cats are a thing to.

Then there's pack animals. If you have a pack of coyotes going after your livestock, you'll need to eliminate that threat as quickly as possible, as each animal you lose is taking money out of your pocket.

So it's not as cut and dried as you'd like to think.

And the real crazy post:

Quote

Quote

Ok then let me ask you this, imagine a general gun ban is issued in the US. Do you think the number of people who will fall victim to leathal animal attacks will be over or under the number of people who currently get shot in the streets?

That strikes me as the wrong question.

We already have laws against shooting people in the streets. Enacting such a ban wouldn't add to the criminality of homicide.

At the same time, you'd be actively taking away people's ability to protect themselves, their families and their investments, creating new victims that didn't exist before solely because of government action.

Is that the position you intended to advance?

Cue everyone telling him how much of an utter fucking moron he is:

Quote

Just one word: WOW!

Quote

To elaborate: when you make it harder for people to get guns in the first place, you're going to have fewer gun crimes being committed.

Quote

Thanks for putting my astonishment into words.

Quote

Another note:

The big thing I think you're missing here is that restricting (note: restricting, not banning) gun ownership will not mean that you will have these additional gun deaths on top of whatever's already going on, it means that the latter number will decrease, and very likely drastically so. Are there people who will end up dead because of a lack of guns? Probably. But that number will almost certainly be far outweighed by the number of people who will be alive because of that same lack of guns.

It's essentially the same rhetorical trick often used by opponents of single-payer in the US when proponents cite the cost as being $32 trillion over ten years while the cost of the current system is $49 trillion over those same ten years. They pretend that single-payer would cost $32 trillion over and above the $49 trillion already being spent, rather than being honest, which is that it will cost $32 trillion instead of $49 trillion. ("Can't afford to do single-payer? No, we can't afford not to do single-payer... plus we'd have a better system overall.") That's essentially the trick being pulled here, pretending that the deaths attributable to a lack of guns (of which there will no doubt be some) will be added on top of all the deaths already happening, which is simply not the case.

This trick is deceitful, it's dishonest, it doesn't work on anyone paying attention, and I thought you were better than that, Another note:

The big thing I think you're missing here, Armus, is that restricting (note: restricting, not banning) gun ownership will not mean that you will have these additional gun deaths on top of whatever's already going on, it means that the latter number will decrease, and very likely drastically so. Are there people who will end up dead because of a lack of guns? Probably. But that number will almost certainly be far outweighed by the number of people who will be alive because of that same lack of guns.

It's essentially the same rhetorical trick often used by opponents of single-payer in the US when proponents cite the cost as being $32 trillion over ten years while the cost of the current system is $49 trillion over those same ten years. They pretend that single-payer would cost $32 trillion over and above the $49 trillion already being spent, rather than being honest, which is that it will cost $32 trillion instead of $49 trillion. ("Can't afford to do single-payer? No, we can't afford not to do single-payer... plus we'd have a better system overall.") That's essentially the trick being pulled here, pretending that the deaths attributable to a lack of guns (of which there will no doubt be some) will be added on top of all the deaths already happening, which is simply not the case.

This trick is deceitful, it's dishonest, it doesn't work on anyone paying attention, and I thought you were better than that.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?